Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is the return format — Markdown — plus the list of sections returned, which is valuable given there is no output schema. It does not say what happens with an invalid or unknown ID.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and the output format, followed by the useful enumeration of returned sections. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, and return contents, which is what an agent needs to call it. Only edge-case behavior (missing ID, unknown listing) is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema itself documents the id with a concrete example format and its provenance ('Listing ID from search_listings'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline applies, though the single well-documented parameter makes this low-risk.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the resource precisely — 'full details of one listing' — and enumerates what those details are, which separates it from the multi-item siblings search_listings and similar_listings. The retrieval verb is implied by 'Full details' rather than stated outright, keeping it just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'one listing' signals this is the detail view to follow a search, and the parameter description points at search_listings as the ID source. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for cases where the agent wants several listings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.